R.A.Danny:How was he convicted if he was the only witness as to what happened?

I mean, I'm assuming he's an asshole and did kill her, but where is the evidence?

You don't have to have an independent witness, otherwise all you'd have to do to successfully murder someone is to be the only surviving witness.

He told multiple stories as to what had happened, and changing one's story that dramatically tends to indicate to investigators and a jury that they're a liar. Add in the circumstantial evidence (numerous affairs, troubled marriage, fact that they were discussing said troubled marriage when she died) plus physical evidence and there was enough for a murder conviction.

Now some are questioning that physical evidence and what it indicates. Whether enough actual experts really truly do disagree AND can convince a judge that there's room to argue that evidence AND the judge is also convinced that without that evidence the case would be in doubt...well, how that turns out will determine whether or not he gets a new trial.

I'm familiar with the case, as it turns out. I personally think he did it. My reasoning (FWIW) is as follows (and it's not enough to convict someone legally)...suspects always remember key details around a traumatic event. Some minor aspects WILL change in the telling. Police look for liars by two methods; one that the story has absolutely no changes, is told the same way each time and the suspect can't do it easily backwards or out of sync (because it's a rehearsed lie). The other is a story where the substantial elements change dramatically (because it's an unprepared lie, or a lie that had to morph to fit the facts). He's done the latter. It's changed from him being right there, they were sitting and discussing marital woes...she got up and lost balance and fell, and he couldn't grab her in time...to he was walking away and she just vanished, to he went to get her a blanket from the car and he saw her fall, to him implying it was suicide b/c he didn't actually see her fall and thought she might have jumped.

Story has changed dramatically many times. Now, we KNOW people do lie against their interests, hopefully everyone is aware of the serious problem of false confessions. However this doesn't have any elements of that (and he has never confessed). He simply has changed the story MANY times, and told different versions to different people. That coupled with the evidence certainly makes me think he's guilty.

But I of course I could be wrong, and I think when there's new evidence or new science, such things SHOULD be reexamined. DNA evidence has exonorated many wrongly convicted people, and that's a good thing.

Lady Indica:He told multiple stories as to what had happened, and changing one's story that dramatically tends to indicate to investigators and a jury that they're a liar. Add in the circumstantial evidence (numerous affairs, troubled marriage, fact that they were discussing said troubled marriage when she died) plus physical evidence and there was enough for a murder conviction.

So seemingly he got himself more than anything else. Amazing how shutting the hell up is the best course of action 99.99% of the time.

Mongo No.5:a two handed push especially with a few steps into it, could accelerate a smaller person to 15mph no problem.

You are standing near a cliff. Human instinct puts you a bit on guard. Getting involved in an argument with your cheating spouse, even more so. If someone is resisting, you don't simply shove them out that far. Now if she was looking out over the cliff and he ran up and caught her by surprise? Now we're into the plausible realm.

R.A.Danny:Lady Indica: He told multiple stories as to what had happened, and changing one's story that dramatically tends to indicate to investigators and a jury that they're a liar. Add in the circumstantial evidence (numerous affairs, troubled marriage, fact that they were discussing said troubled marriage when she died) plus physical evidence and there was enough for a murder conviction.

So seemingly he got himself more than anything else. Amazing how shutting the hell up is the best course of action 99.99% of the time.

Not doing it in the first place halves the risk even more! Of course there is always a chance of still ending up in jail for a crime you didn`t commit. You might even promptly escape from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. You could end up still wanted by the government, surviving as soldiers of fortune. If people have a problem, if no one else can help, and if they can find you, maybe they could hire... The A-Team.

Also, a six minute mile (10 mph) is a pretty fast run for most people. I imagine 13 mph is right around the sprint speed of an untrained person not dressed for running.

Bolt's average speed from 60 meters to 80 meters during a record run was 27.8 MPH, but I agree that 13 is about right for a typical sprinting human. No way anyone could "push" someone to that speed, unless assisted by a car.

There's something I don't understand... How the hell would taking a step backwards into air and falling off a cliff be at all distinguishable from a push which tips someone over the edge of a cliff?

When you give someone at the edge of a cliff a push they're not going to go flying out 20 feet unless you're Tony Stark in your Iron Man armor... real people are only pushing them out a foot or two. And if you got a running start so you could push them out as far as five or six feet you're going over the edge WITH them. In real life the difference between a push and a trip is going to be negligable at the top of the cliff and indistinguishable at the bottom after falling and probably bouncing off of rocks on the way down.

FTFA:Kellinger and two other people coming to Stephen Scharf's defense said if Jody Ann had been pushed from the rocks, she would have landed closer to the base of the cliff. Instead, her body was found 52 feet out."If I push somebody, they're only going to go a few feet per second," Kellinger said.

I think he's got it backwards. Push somebody and she'll gain horizontal velocity. She'll land further out, not closer.